Skip to comments.How Mitt Romney Won My Vote
Posted on 10/08/2012 3:32:23 AM PDT by Kaslin
Note: The author would like to thank the Psalmist, Switchfoot, and Samwise for inspiring this column.
Back in May of 1999, I made a decision to leave the Democratic Party. It was an easy decision. I had been a Democrat for 11 years. I voted for Dukakis when I was a committed leftist. But, later, when I became a pro-life conservative, there was no room for me in the party. So I became a Republican and also joined the NRA. I've been a straight shooter ever since. Excuse me if that last line sounded heterosexist. Im a work in regress.
As a committed conservative - one who many people think should be committed - I place ideology above party loyalty. It is true that I will not vote for any Democrat under any circumstances, not even if they seek my vote for local dog catcher. The image of Florida Democrats interpreting "chads" is burned in my memory forever. Mike Adams clings to a grudge longer than Al Sharpton clings to a discredited rape victim. But that doesn't mean I will always vote Republican. Each candidate has to work to earn my vote. That is especially true if I view him as a member of the establishment, rather than a product of a grass roots movement.
Mitt Romney is not nearly as conservative as I would like him to be. So I did not feel comfortable supporting him going into the Denver presidential debate. I'm sorry to talk about my feelings. I know I'm a member of the NRA but I still have feelings. Just ask Ingrid Newkirk of PETA. I send her Christmas cards every year - although I know she does not appreciate that they are home-made and feature pictures of the deer I kill during the holiday season.
Sorry to digress. Now, lets get back to my feelings.
Some people will say that the Denver debate changed their vote from Obama to Romney. But I am not among them. My vote was changed from going-to-sit-this-one-out to Romney. But it did not take a 90-minute debate to do it. It only took one line. He didn't have me at "hello." He got me when he scolded a boyish eye-contact-avoiding president for over-spending. Specifically, he got me when he looked right at Obama and characterized the current spending problem as immoral.
It was a home run. And it cut right to the heart of the nature of our spending problem. It is more than just a spending problem. It is a moral problem. To fail to grasp the depth of the moral deficit that makes possible our fiscal deficit is to misjudge the American political landscape altogether. It is to misapprehend the nature of the American constitutional experiment altogether.
Our nation is rooted in a deep tradition of respect for property rights. It is a tradition that was well understood until the Greatest Generation gave birth to the Gratest Generation (mis-spelling intentional) - a generation that now controls our nation's purse strings. That generation has turned its back on core principles expressed by our Founders. In the process, it has jeopardized the existence of the republic.
Our Founders knew that our rights had a necessary moral component - a necessary moral dimension. In saying they were given by our Creator, they implied as much. But they implied much more than that. The most obvious implication is that God-given rights may not be taken from us by man.
But that idea is lost on the current political class. And they need to rediscover it.
Our Founders would have been shocked to see a budget devised by promise-breakers who knowingly lie to future generations in order to attain the power necessary to fund their deception. The promise-breakers know the collapse is inevitable. But they expect to be gone before it actually happens. Much has been said about a generation that has killed millions of its own offspring. More must be said about the millions it has robbed in order to ensure perpetual comfort and to avoid financial sacrifice.
In Denver, Romney spoke harshly to the current leader of that generation. His words echoed over the mountain tops and traveled through the valley in the shadow of debt. They reminded some of us that the shadow proves the sunshine. And that means there is some good left in this world and that it is still worth fighting for.
I can only vote for what I do believe in. I have control over one thing. My vote. I will cast it in support of conservative and yes, christian ideals.
The rest of America can either join me in doing so or not bitch when they are stuck defending themselves for the next 4 years every time their chosen leader sticks it to them.
Yup I’m also still here, still living in OH, and still NOT voting for Romney.
But for the most part I do not crap on the floor. The mittbots have taken over, and when Mitt loses we can pick up the pieces and try again for an actual conservative next time,
...or Mitt wins and we wait for the inevitable betrayal of all we believe in, with the attendant trashing of GOP/conservative brand and with no opposition from congress.
the problem is that even sitting out is participating in the demise.
Comparing their voting records:
Obamacare Akin-No; McCaskill-Yes
Medicare Cuts Akin-No; McCaskill-Yes
2nd Amendment Akin "A" McCaskill "F"
Social Security Cut Akin-No; McCaskill-Yes
Wallstreet Bailout Akin-No; McCaskill-Yes
Pro-Life Akin-A; McCaskill-F
Passed budget Akin-Yes; McCaskill-No (3 years)
I, too, am disappointed in the choice of Mitt Romney, but if conservatives vote for truly conservative men and women to represent us in the US House and Senate, AND if we watch them all and "hold their feet to the fire," then IMO, we may be able to drag Romney - and the rest of America - back in the RIGHT direction.
Just wondering what you think and where you stand on these other candidates....
I love the idea of sending Christmas cards to PETA every year with the pics of your current deer kill.
There are over 600,000 hunters in Wisconsin.
They could really drive PETA nuts with a swarm of such cards!!!
Participation signals assent. I do not want my vote interpreted — by libs or establishment RINOs — as an endorsement of Romney’s flaccid conservatism. Sitting out the presidential vote means saying NO to the Hobson’s choice I’ve been given.
Voting for Satan isn’t much worse than voting for Beelzebub.
Having said that, Romney did much to redeem himself in the Denver debate. I don’t believe him; his record belies his rhetoric. But at least he paid lip service to conservative ideals. And that’s something for which he can be held to account.
the problem is that even sitting out is participating in the demise.”””
Especially with the voter fraud that is sure to show up.
That’s exactly right. And even if it’s just slowing down an inevitable demise, it’s still the right thing to do.
“Another thinking American comes to his senses.
I have noticed that the FReepers that hate Romney and are going to “sit this one out” have steadily decreased in their rants, and the ones that are still hold outs are running out of ammo and food and water.
There will always be a few left, like the Japanese soldiers on some lost island.”
It’s called being the bigger man ;)
“If Romney wins, I still lose. His values are not my values. When (if) the Party puts someone forward that I can support, I will vote for them. Until then, I have plenty of other things to keep my busy.
I would wait and respond, but I am meeting my wife for breakfast. With the choices that the Party has put forward, it beats politics by a long way.”
well put :)
I’ve been thinking lately that Romney is a smart guy. He knows conservatism is what we all want, just look at the way our candidates fall all over themselves telling us how conservative they are during the primaries, or how Reagan was the greatest.
So maybe, just maybe, he’ll actually govern as a conservative because he wants to be remembered as the next Reagan. I honestly don’t care if he is one, only that he acts like one.
I can hope. You can laugh at me.
I believe those of use that are sitting it out/write-in/3rd party are just the opposite....stockpiling for whomever ‘wins’ come November, ‘cuz it won’t matter which party continues along the path we’re currently set upon.
We’d be better off focusing on the local/House/Senate picks than President (which I still never understood the hoopla about, considering the E.College does the actual choosing).
There will be enough crow to eat for everyone I suspect; mine being IF/when they actually shrink/rid of a department in Fedzilla....
But to believe in Mitt’s rhetoric recently and neglect all his past is madness. Just because he doesn’t (currently) use sand in the Vaseline doesn’t mean I’m happy to grab my ankles.
It’s a shame that all these ‘brilliant’ lawyer-ly/ivy-league educated types, can’t understand the plain verbiage of any of those exalted Documents.
Mitt’s rant what they meant to him still had me screaming “Wrong!” at my TV
“I will digest this later, I am still wavering.”
I admit, there is much to digest before casting your vote.
The brutal regime in charge has almost destroyed us to the point we’re going to have to claw our way back over the course of many years. When obama couldn’t get his way, he issued EO’s. That won’t stop in a second term. No, it will be much worse.
The regime stands with muslims. We got a great example of their callousness to the citizens of this country with the recent terrorist attacks on our embassies and the brutal deaths of 4 men who had absolutely no protection, nothing with which to defend themselves. Their fate was sealed long before the attacks.
Not only did the regime lie and tried to brush off these deaths and did their best to blame a movie, they added insult to injury with their in-your-face obama flag that replaced the stars and stripes. Sickening.
There’s much more, but you know that. If ever there was a “crawl over broken glass” moment in the history of the United States (in our generation at least), this is it.
Why so? Because we are lost if we do not persuade literally millions of our fellow countrymen to move to the right. And if we reject one who seems to be doing so--if we continually insult his integrity--what sort of a message do we send to those millions whom we need to convince to make the same move?
Because Romney has proven himself as something of a problem solver, there is real evidence--convincing proof--that he is a realist. Because Conservative, free market, limited government, personal responsibility premises have proven to offer the best hope for any people, why should one doubt that Gov. Romney's acceptance of those premises is now genuine?
People need to put anger over past disappointments into the perspective of the desperate need for America to retire Obama from office. This really is a very crucial election; and Romney makes a lot of sense right now. (See Romney/Ryan.)
Romney definitely wasn’t my first or second choice but once he became the nominee, I support him and donated to him. This election, more than any other, is about getting a Communist out of the White House. Bill Clinton could be the Republican nominee and I’d vote for him.
There are over 600,000 hunters in Wisconsin.
They could really drive PETA nuts with a swarm of such cards!!!
Unfortunately I would estimate (my estimate) that 45% of the 600,000 deer hunters in Wisc (and I am one of them) are still committed union or pro-union / democRAT voters, even if they are deer hunters. DemocRATs will vote for their party line & ideology as their true religion. Even though the NRA has come out with resounding endorsement for Romney/Ryan, that will likely not flip one democRAT over to the Repubs. Maybe a few independents, but that is it.
I have never ceased to be amazed at how hard working, basically honest & decent people otherwise, can be so naive & stupid to vote for socialist democRATs who do everything they can to drive up taxes & spending & socialist-marxist takeover of America, and to destroy the very lifestyle that these ignoramuses profess to believe in, and yet they vote for the party that is doing everything they can to destroy our country & THEIR lifestyle.
Yes, if I lived in Missouri I would definitely vote for Akin.
I don’t think that there are enough social conservatives in Congress to pull anybody anywhere.
I don’t think that the problem is people not voting for Romney. I think that the problem is conservatives being willing to vote for whomever the Party nominates. It only encourages the liberals to keep nominating increasingly liberal candidates.
Currently eating with my wife at the Veranda Cafe in Black Mountain, North Carolina. Better than politics. Get back with me when a conservative is nominated.
I thought you might be interested in this, a coalition of pro-family, pro-life conservatives from Massachusetts on Romney’s conservative efforts there...
An Open Letter Regarding Governor Mitt Romney
January 11, 2007
Dear conservative friends:
We hail from a broad spectrum of organizations dedicated to fighting for the pro-family agenda in Massachusetts. As you know, Mitt Romney became the governor of our state in 2003. Since that time, we have worked closely with him and his excellent staff on that agenda.
Some press accounts and bloggers have described Governor Romney in terms we neither have observed nor can we accept. To the contrary, we, who have been fighting here for the values you also hold, are indebted to him and his responsive staff in demonstrating solid social conservative credentials by undertaking the following actions here in Massachusetts:
Staunchly defended traditional marriage. Governor Romney immediately and strongly condemned the 2003 court decision that legalized same-sex marriage in our state. More importantly, he followed up on that denunciation with action action that saved our nation from a constitutional crisis over the definition of marriage. He and his staff identified and enforced a little-known 1913 law that allowed them to order local clerks not to issue marriage licenses to out-of-state couples. Absent this action, homosexual couples would surely have flooded into Massachusetts from other states to get married and then demanded that their home states recognize the marriages, putting the nation only one court decision away from nationalizing same-sex marriage.
Worked hard to overturn same-sex marriage in the Commonwealth with considerable progress to date. In 2004 he lobbied hard, before a very hostile legislature, for a constitutional amendment protecting marriage an amendment later changed by the legislature to include civil unions, which the Governor and many marriage amendment supporters opposed. Working with the Governor, we were successful in defeating this amendment.
Provided active support for a successful citizen petition drive in 2005 to advance a clean constitutional amendment defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman.
Rallied thousands of citizens to focus public and media attention on the failure of legislators, through repeated delays, to perform their constitutional obligation and vote on the marriage amendment.
Filed suit before the Supreme Judicial Court. The Governors suit asked the court to clarify the legislators duty to vote and failing that, to place the amendment on the 2008 ballot. That lawsuit, perhaps more than any other single action, was by all accounts instrumental in bringing pressure on the legislators to vote. The vote ultimately was taken on January 2, 2007 and won legislative support clearing a major hurdle in the three year effort to restore traditional marriage in the Commonwealth.
Fought for abstinence education. In 2006, under Governor Romneys leadership, Massachusetts public schools began to offer a classroom program on abstinence from the faith-based Boston group Healthy Futures to middle school students. Promoting the program, Governor Romney stated, Ive never had anyone complain to me that their kids are not learning enough about sex in school. However, a number of people have asked me why it is that we do not speak more about abstinence as a safe and preventative health practice.
Affirmed the culture of life. Governor Romney has vetoed bills to provide access to the so-called morning-after pill, which is an abortifacient, as well as a bill providing for expansive, embryo-destroying stem cell research. He vetoed the latter bill in 2005 because the could not in good conscience allow this bill to become law.
Stood for religious freedom. Last year, Governor Romney was stalwart in defense of the right of Catholic Charities of Boston to refuse to allow homosexual couples to adopt children in its care. Catholic Charities was loudly accused of discrimination, but Governor Romney correctly pointed out that it is unjust to force a religious agency to violate the tenets of its faith in order to placate a special-interest group.
Filed An Act Protecting Religious Freedom in the Massachusetts legislature to save Catholic Charities of Boston and other religious groups from being forced to violate their moral principles or stop doing important charitable work.
All of this may explain why John J. Miller, the national political reporter of National Review, has written that a good case can be made that Romney has fought harder for social conservatives than any other governor in America, and it is difficult to imagine his doing so in a more daunting political environment.
We are aware of the 1994 comments of Senate candidate Romney, which have been the subject of much recent discussion. While they are, taken by themselves, obviously worrisome to social conservatives including ourselves, they do not dovetail with the actions of Governor Romney from 2003 until now and those actions have positively and demonstrably impacted the social climate of Massachusetts.
Since well before 2003, we have been laboring in the trenches of Massachusetts, fighting for the family values you and we share. It is difficult work indeed not for the faint of heart. In this challenging environment, Governor Romney has proven that he shares our values, as well as our determination to protect them.
For four years, Governor Romney has been right there beside us, providing leadership on key issues whether it was politically expedient to do so or not. He has stood on principle, and we have benefited greatly from having him with us.
It is clear that Governor Romney has learned much since 1994 to the benefit of our movement and our Commonwealth. In fact, the entire nation has benefited from his socially conservative, pro-family actions in office. As we explained earlier, his leadership on the marriage issue helped prevent our nation from being plunged into even worse legal turmoil following the court decision that forced gay marriage upon our Commonwealth.
For that our country ought to be thankful. We certainly are.
President, Morality in Media Massachusetts
Immediate Past State Deputy, Massachusetts State Council, Knights of Columbus
Mary Ann Glendon
Learned Hand Professor of Law, Harvard Law School
President, Massachusetts Family Institute
Dr. Roberto Miranda
President, COPAHNI Fellowship of Hispanic Pastors of New England
President, Institute for Family Development
President, Massachusetts Citizens for Life
Thomas A. Shields
Chairman, Coalition for Family and Marriage
Note: The signatories are all acting as individual citizens, and not as representatives of their respective organizations. Organizational affiliations and titles appear for identification purposes only.